Thread Tools

Shortly after the first Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was a little sensitive to charges that he failed to âfinish the jobâ against Iraq. More than a few hawks thought that Cheney and the other Bush administration dropped the ball when it had the opportunity to take out Saddam but chose not to.

In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad. As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, âHow much credibility is that government going to have if itâs set up by the United States military when itâs there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?â

Cheney also said:

âThe notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what weâd have to do once we got there. Youâd probably have to put some new government in place. Itâs not clear what kind of government that would be, how long youâd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over whoâs going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.â

The â91 Cheney sure was smart, wasnât he?

To his credit, ABC Newsâ Jonathan Karl sat down with Cheney in Australia today for a fairly wide-ranging interview, amd asked the Vice President about his remarks from 16 years ago. Cheneyâs response was not reassuring.

Karl: Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were? Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in â

Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in â91. But look whatâs happened since then â we had 9/11. Weâve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we werenât safe and secure behind our own borders. We werenât in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in â93 at the World Trade Center, in â96 at Khobar Towers, or â98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didnât respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.

If someone can explain how and why this makes sense, Iâm anxious to hear it. White House critics like to joke about the Bush gang overusing â9/11 changed everythingâ as a rationalization that justifies anything, but Cheneyâs comments today seem to be unusually vapid.

He âstands byâ what he said in 1991? Maybe Cheney is confused about what the phrase âstands byâ means, but it suggests he still agrees with the remarks he made when he insisted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a âclassic definition of a quagmire.â In the next breath, however, thereâs 9/11.

It seems, in all sincerity, that Cheney was arguing that the 9/11 attacks justify the quagmire he predicted 16 years ago. Why? Just because.

If Cheney had said he was wrong in 1991, there would at least be something resembling coherence here. He thought Iraq would be a mess if we invaded, but we invaded, and lo and behold, everything is going great.

But thatâs not what he said. Cheney argued that he was right before and right now, despite the fact that the two Cheneys appear to contradict each other.

It is clear how this guy thinks and what he believes in, he has to be one of the most scariest folks ever seen a heartbeat away.. OTOH what happened in '91 and why we did not finish the job came back to haunt us. I know it was not politically correct to do this and all of the coalition crap, but if we had done that then, then a lot of what is going on now may not have happened. I know it is speculation, but most seem to agree that we should have finished the job then.

It is clear how this guy thinks and what he believes in, he has to be one of the most scariest folks ever seen a heartbeat away.. OTOH what happened in '91 and why we did not finish the job came back to haunt us. I know it was not politically correct to do this and all of the coalition crap, but if we had done that then, then a lot of what is going on now may not have happened. I know it is speculation, but most seem to agree that we should have finished the job then.

Click to expand...

You imply that it was our job to finish.
My point of view on GW I was that our involvement there was as wrong as it is in Iraq now. Bush's only goal, and the only reason for the existence of Kuwait, was to secure a port for the shipment of ME oil from the Iraq region. His goal had nothing to do with killing Hussein or destroying Iraq. Bush knew he'd prefer the devil he knew, and it turns out that he was right all along. How he let his punk kid go and foul it all up we'll never know. The same think would have happenned there if we went to take out Hussein. The "coalition" of GW I would have been crazy to go along with a destruction of Iraq, and probably wouldn't have. We would have been STILL bogged down in Iraq today, 16 years later, or we would have left and stepped back while Iraq re-defined itself through civil war, as they're doing now.

Cheney seems to be doing what many politicians do. Claim they are correct today and were correct yesterday. Hillary is dong basically the same thing now. When she was in Berlin a couple she would not admit she made a mistake in 03 when she voted to go in. Now she is saying we need to get out.

In other words I was not wrong then and I am not wrong now even though I support opposite positions defend each one and have the evidence to support both. Each one will try to rationalize their decisions but in the end they are after all,,,,, just politicians.

I agre that it would have been better to get rid of Saddam in 91. There are 2 things I would note though. In order to get the Arab countries involved it was necessary to agree not to totally get rid of Saddam. Second the situation post 9-11 is a different world than pre 9-11.

You imply that it was our job to finish.
My point of view on GW I was that our involvement there was as wrong as it is in Iraq now. Bush's only goal, and the only reason for the existence of Kuwait, was to secure a port for the shipment of ME oil from the Iraq region. His goal had nothing to do with killing Hussein or destroying Iraq. Bush knew he'd prefer the devil he knew, and it turns out that he was right all along. How he let his punk kid go and foul it all up we'll never know. The same think would have happenned there if we went to take out Hussein. The "coalition" of GW I would have been crazy to go along with a destruction of Iraq, and probably wouldn't have. We would have been STILL bogged down in Iraq today, 16 years later, or we would have left and stepped back while Iraq re-defined itself through civil war, as they're doing now.

Click to expand...

I disagree a little Wistah. Our involvement in Gulf War I is exactly what we stand for. We should be defending peaceful nations like we did. We should have slapped that azzhole Hussien in '91 when we had the world there to support us. Sadly, the world, even then, didn't have the teeth to see it through. Had we tried to do it then, we've have obviously had a tough time, as no wars are ever really easy, but ultimately, we'd have tried to institute a free nation in the heart of the ME 16 years ago. Who knows how it would have looked now. The ME might be a totally different place today. Obviously, it's all speculative. At the time though, we had nearly 600,000 troops in the region, and the support of the Shia in the south, and kurds in the north. We'd have had far more support than we did in 2003, that's for sure.

You make it sound like Cheney is the first politician in history to change viewpoints on a certain issue, albeit a different time and a different threat -- 1990 was a *LOT* more limited, whereas post 9/11 suddenly became open season on the U.S. in ways we've never seen before! What the hey?!!

How about Uncle Teddy Kennedy or St. Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the Dem pols in their stance on Iraq in 2001, 2002, 2003, and even until that most important deciding point, based on the latest poll data: the 2006 elections (and looking ahead to further hay in 2008?). They *ALL* signed off on going into Iraq.

Oh, we know all about the "faulty intel", yada, yada, yada. Like the Senate and House don't have "any" credible independent intel sources of their own. Right.

We could go into a laundry list of other instances of reversals by Dem pols over the years, but who wants to just pile on.

(Go to work, PC, we can hear your Google bar straining under its load now!! )

---Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in â91. But look whatâs happened since then â we had 9/11. Weâve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we werenât safe and secure behind our own borders. We werenât in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in â93 at the World Trade Center, in â96 at Khobar Towers, or â98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didnât respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.---

This is just another in a long line of statements he has made trying to link 9-11 with Iraq. The only thing that links all his mentioned terrorist attacks is that NONE of them involved Iraq or Iraqi's.

He refers to Iraq once by name, then uses "they" in a weak attempt to link the 2. It's the same BS over and over again.

Even if we beleived Iraq had some WMD's, excatly what delivery system were they going to use to create mushroom clouds in American cities? With no fly-zones covering half the country and no Air Force to speak of and missle systems that couldn't reach farther than Isreal if they even still were operable, what was the immediate threat? Was he being black-mailed by Halliburton?

15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia as well as OBL and the Al-Queda movement. What have we done in response? We took out their greatest threat, threatened their next biggest rival and allowed them to gouge the American people's wallet. That's a hell of a deal to get and it's only cost us 6,000+ American lives. Awesome! Why hasn't Venezuela figured this out?

---Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in â91. But look whatâs happened since then â we had 9/11. Weâve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we werenât safe and secure behind our own borders. We werenât in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in â93 at the World Trade Center, in â96 at Khobar Towers, or â98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didnât respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.---

This is just another in a long line of statements he has made trying to link 9-11 with Iraq. The only thing that links all his mentioned terrorist attacks is that NONE of them involved Iraq or Iraqi's.

He refers to Iraq once by name, then uses "they" in a weak attempt to link the 2. It's the same BS over and over again.

Even if we beleived Iraq had some WMD's, excatly what delivery system were they going to use to create mushroom clouds in American cities? With no fly-zones covering half the country and no Air Force to speak of and missle systems that couldn't reach farther than Isreal if they even still were operable, what was the immediate threat? Was he being black-mailed by Halliburton?

15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia as well as OBL and the Al-Queda movement. What have we done in response? We took out their greatest threat, threatened their next biggest rival and allowed them to gouge the American people's wallet. That's a hell of a deal to get and it's only cost us 6,000+ American lives. Awesome! Why hasn't Venezuela figured this out?

Click to expand...

The Clinton administration connected Saddam to OB Ladin in 1998 in their indictment. In point of FACT the indictment mentioned specifically that Saddam was assisting Al Queda in developing Chem/BIO wmd. Was Clinton 'lying'? Obliviously after 9-11 that type of cooperation took on a whole new meaning especially after Saddam refused to follow the agreements he made with the US and the UN the wake of the invasion of Kuwait and the gassing of the Kurds. Don't forget that Zarqwai was in Iraq for more than 2 years before we went in.

Toxic gas and Bio weapons in a city don't require a real sophiscated delivery system.

The Clinton administration connected Saddam to OB Ladin in 1998 in their indictment. In point of FACT the indictment mentioned specifically that Saddam was assisting Al Queda in developing Chem/BIO wmd. Was Clinton 'lying'? Obliviously after 9-11 that type of cooperation took on a whole new meaning especially after Saddam refused to follow the agreements he made with the US and the UN the wake of the invasion of Kuwait and the gassing of the Kurds. Don't forget that Zarqwai was in Iraq for more than 2 years before we went in.

Toxic gas and Bio weapons in a city don't require a real sophiscated delivery system.

Click to expand...

Wow. Big news there. The #2 guy in Al-Queda took a crap in Iraq. On a sidenote it's all Clinton's fault.

Saddam Hussein killed Kurds. Saudi nutjobs killed Americans. Are you trying to make a comparison?

You make it sound like Cheney is the first politician in history to change viewpoints on a certain issue, albeit a different time and a different threat -- 1990 was a *LOT* more limited, whereas post 9/11 suddenly became open season on the U.S. in ways we've never seen before! What the hey?!!

How about Uncle Teddy Kennedy or St. Hillary Clinton and all the rest of the Dem pols in their stance on Iraq in 2001, 2002, 2003, and even until that most important deciding point, based on the latest poll data: the 2006 elections (and looking ahead to further hay in 2008?). They *ALL* signed off on going into Iraq.

Oh, we know all about the "faulty intel", yada, yada, yada. Like the Senate and House don't have "any" credible independent intel sources of their own. Right.

We could go into a laundry list of other instances of reversals by Dem pols over the years, but who wants to just pile on.

(Go to work, PC, we can hear your Google bar straining under its load now!! )

//

Click to expand...

You bring up a great point and add Edwards to the list. Republicans and Democrats licked their finger, stuck it in the air, and tested the political winds. The winds said war and that's how they voted. Shameful on many levels but especially because lives, not pork projects like Hastert's bogus highway legislation, were in the balance.

And let's say for a minute they didn't vote for it for those reasons. That means they trusted this admin's faulty and now clearly fictional intelligence which makes them suckers. Frankly, I'm not sure what's worse.

You bring up a great point and add Edwards to the list. Republicans and Democrats licked their finger, stuck it in the air, and tested the political winds. The winds said war and that's how they voted. Shameful on many levels but especially because lives, not pork projects like Hastert's bogus highway legislation, were in the balance.

And let's say for a minute they didn't vote for it for those reasons. That means they trusted this admin's faulty and now clearly fictional intelligence which makes them suckers. Frankly, I'm not sure what's worse.

Click to expand...

you're not sure what's worse? a liar, or a lazy believer in lies? wow... i'm pretty clear on what's worse...

Wow. Big news there. The #2 guy in Al-Queda took a crap in Iraq. On a sidenote it's all Clinton's fault.

Saddam Hussein killed Kurds. Saudi nutjobs killed Americans. Are you trying to make a comparison?

Click to expand...

Why do you think it was Clinton's fault? I pointed out the fact that his administration whne it indicted OBL associated him with Saddam and said in the indictment that Iraq was trying to help Al Queda to botain chem and bio weapons.

My question (which you apparently didn't get, was the Clinton administration lying whne they connected Saddam to OBL and indicated that Iraq was aiding Al Queda?

This wasn't something that originated with the Bush administration you know. Or maybe in your blind hatred of Bush you don't realize this? IMO Clinton was right in his evaluation of the relationship between Al Queda and Iraq.

Why do you think it was Clinton's fault? I pointed out the fact that his administration whne it indicted OBL associated him with Saddam and said in the indictment that Iraq was trying to help Al Queda to botain chem and bio weapons.

My question (which you apparently didn't get, was the Clinton administration lying whne they connected Saddam to OBL and indicated that Iraq was aiding Al Queda?

This wasn't something that originated with the Bush administration you know. Or maybe in your blind hatred of Bush you don't realize this? IMO Clinton was right in his evaluation of the relationship between Al Queda and Iraq.

Click to expand...

so? to hell with all of them... you're not really zinging dissentors of war when you deflect to Clinton's allegded gaffes in this whole thing... the point is the office of the presidency has been grossly fraudulent for a long time... And much worse so the past 6 years...

I don't think Clinton made a gaffe when he associated OBL and Saddam. I do laugh when you characterize Clinton's assessment as a gaffe and when Bush made the same assessment it is a lie.

Thanks for the laugh of the day. :singing:

Click to expand...

semantics, and you're crapping your pants over them...

perhaps Clinton lied, but there sure is a lot more evidence that your icon in office knew beforehand and lied... when I see more striking evidence that Clinton willfully lied about the fraudulent OBL/Saddam link, i'll be sure to condemn him as well... so far, you've presented none... so it remains "alledged"... as for Boy King, however, there was less evidence against Orenthal James Simpson...

it must piss you right off that your default macro "but... but... Clinton did it too" line of rationale just went swirling down the toilet...